Yes: Tim Browne, head of operational services for children and young people, Gloucestershire County Council

In Gloucestershire about 250 young people are registered as homeeducated. Many parents feel that in some way they can offer a more suitable education at home. Some families make a very careful, considered decision to home educate before the child even reaches school age; other parents send their children into the school system but later find them unhappy. They may have learning difficulties or have been bullied. Some parents feel that school just does not suit their child's way of learning.

Without a suitable education, children are unable to thrive in contemporary society and reach their full potential. A good education is key to addressing child poverty and ensuring that children achieve the best possible outcomes for their future.

We believe that local authorities need greater powers to monitor home education. There are a number of reasons why. Councils have an overarching statutory duty to ensure that children are safeguarded and that their welfare is promoted. Current legislation makes it difficult to carry out this responsibility properly.

Abuse is the exception among home-educating families, but it is not unheard of. We have had examples of this in our county, including the case of Eunice Spry. Councils have very limited powers. Under the Education Act, we are required to establish the identity of children in our area who are not receiving a suitable education. However, part of the issue is that the guidance makes clear that this does not apply to children who are home educated.

Local authorities have no statutory duty to monitor the quality of home education. While the responsibility for a child's education rests with parents, the definition of a suitable education under the Education Act 1996 is vague. All it allows us to do is to intervene if it appears that a parent is not providing a suitable education.

The first problem with this is that it is hard for local authorities to be aware of all the home-educating families in their area. Only those taking children out of school have to register. Those who have never entered the school system do not have to inform the authorities, making it difficult for a council to keep track of the numbers and, more importantly, the quality of education.

We also need sufficient powers to determine if the education is suitable and of high quality and sufficient clarity on what a suitable education is in the eyes of the law. The current definition is questionable at best.

Finally, case law has established that local authorities may make only informal queries to a parent educating at home. This does not allow direct visits or other actions we feel we need to ensure a child's needs are being met.

We have a good relationship with our home-educating families and aim to provide a light touch but supportive approach. But part of our safeguarding duty is to limit the risk of abuse happening in any circumstances.

No: Ann Newstead, spokeswoman, Education Otherwise, and home educator

Our school system was created in Victorian times as a welfare issue to provide for those who would otherwise not have an education. But the current system is not fit for purpose and that is why the parents of 55,000 children choose to educate them at home. The European Court of Human Rights supports our right to raise a child according to the community in which we live. It seems there is confusion over what constitutes a “suitable education”.

Our Education Act says “suitable to age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs the child may have”, and case law has established it as that which equips a child to take part in modern society. I can't see any better definition.

As home educators, we offer the ultimate in personalised learning, but it doesn't necessarily look like formal education. The Department for Children, Schools and Families' Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities in England, which was issued in November 2007, acknowledged that home education is not “school at home”. They said if home educators did not wish for home visits that should not be a cause for concern. Before that, local authorities would flag us up as having something to hide if we declined a visit.

At the moment thousands of children are being abused and going to school does not prevent that abuse. In the case of Eunice Spry, the abuse started while the children were in school.

It is a false assumption that because they are in contact with teachers, it is picked up. If that is the case, why are children not checked up on during the school holidays? If you remove a child from school, you immediately attract attention; to withdraw your child to hide abuse seems illogical.

There is a lot of prejudice around home education, mainly owing to a lack of understanding. My children are seen by other home educators every day, as well as librarians and museum staff. We are a linked-up bunch.

Most people in local authorities who have responsibility for elective home education are ex-teachers or welfare officers. They have no personal experience of home education. Many are completely against the idea. They might ask to see evidence of work, but as parents we don't need that from our children. The State's whole emphasis is on outcomes, but that model doesn't apply to us.

This is the fourth consultation in three years. It appears that the Government is not getting the answer it wants, so keeps asking the question. There is a confusion between child welfare and education.

When we asked the London Safeguarding Board, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Affairs Committee that reported on forced marriages to provide evidence for the “several cases of abuse” they mentioned, none could do so.

People make assumptions of home education as a cover for abuse when there is no evidence to support it.